Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrown, CJ
dc.contributor.authorAlthor, G
dc.contributor.authorHalpern, BS
dc.contributor.authorIftekhar, MS
dc.contributor.authorKlein, CJ
dc.contributor.authorLinke, S
dc.contributor.authorPryde, EC
dc.contributor.authorSchilizzi, S
dc.contributor.authorWatson, JEM
dc.contributor.authorTwohey, B
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-07T01:41:49Z
dc.date.available2019-06-07T01:41:49Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1467-2960
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/faf.12240
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/380126
dc.description.abstractAlmost all environmental management comes at an economic cost that may not be borne equitably by all stakeholders. Here, we investigate how heterogeneity in catch and profits among fishers influences the trade‐off among the triple‐bottom‐line objectives of recovering a fish population, maximizing its economic value and distributing restrictions equitably across fishers. As a case‐study, we examine management reform of an ecologically and economically important coral reef fishery operating within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Using a simulation model, we find that total profitability of the fishing industry is 40% lower if recovery plans are equitable when compared to the most economically efficient plan. However, efficient recovery plans were typically highly inequitable because they required some fishers to cease fishing. Equity was defined according to different norms, and the efficiency loss was greatest when catch losses were shared equally across fishers rather than in proportion to their historical catch. We then varied key social, economic and biological parameters to identify cases when equity and efficient recovery would trade‐off most strongly. Recovery plans could be both efficient and equitable when heterogeneity in fisher's catches and individual catch efficiencies was lower. If fishers were homogenous then equitable plans could have maximal economic efficiency. These results emphasize the importance of considering heterogeneity in individual fishers when designing recovery plans. Recovery plans that are inequitable may often fail to gain stakeholder support, so in fisheries with high heterogeneity we should temper our expectations for marked increases in profits.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom107
dc.relation.ispartofpageto116
dc.relation.ispartofissue1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalFish and Fisheries
dc.relation.ispartofvolume19
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental management
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4104
dc.titleTrade-offs in triple-bottom-line outcomes when recovering fisheries
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, School of Environment and Science
gro.rights.copyright© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Trade‐offs in triple‐bottom‐line outcomes when recovering fisheries, Fish and Fisheries, Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 107-116, 2018, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12240. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html)
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorIftekhar, Md Sayed S.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record